The syntax, how all the sentences are short yet very detailed and how McCarthy chooses not to use quotations in dialogue, is the foundation to the book. “i cant,” McCarthy doesn't even use an apostrophe in contractions as if to say that they are so broken and have fallen apart so much they could not even be concerned to use proper grammar. Not using correct grammar isn’t a big issue obviously but if it were written any differently the message would be a lot different. “You’ll see.” , “Just go.”, “It’s all right.” The man is always comforting the boy as if to assure him that they will certainly be okay and everything will work out in the end. Even when the man is dying he is reassuring his son telling him that he will be okay and he will be lucky just as they had always been. The father repeatedly telling the boy that it will be okay is him having faith in their luck because if the had not been lucky then they would probably would have died a long time ago but their luck kept them alive. Now the man is relying on luck for the boy to keep going on without him. He is building the boy up for the inevitable. All the father can really hope for is that these reassuring fragments will make him son keep faith in their luck. If the man or the boy had been speaking in full long sentences they would seem a lot stronger and able. The fragments make it seem though they are broken, only able to say a few words at a time. Everything about the book is short and abrupt, except the ‘adventure’ itself. Their journey is painfully long, almost tedious, and very much routine. Which is where most of the motif comes in. “Carrying the fire” is a recurring phrase. It does not pertain to the
The syntax, how all the sentences are short yet very detailed and how McCarthy chooses not to use quotations in dialogue, is the foundation to the book. “i cant,” McCarthy doesn't even use an apostrophe in contractions as if to say that they are so broken and have fallen apart so much they could not even be concerned to use proper grammar. Not using correct grammar isn’t a big issue obviously but if it were written any differently the message would be a lot different. “You’ll see.” , “Just go.”, “It’s all right.” The man is always comforting the boy as if to assure him that they will certainly be okay and everything will work out in the end. Even when the man is dying he is reassuring his son telling him that he will be okay and he will be lucky just as they had always been. The father repeatedly telling the boy that it will be okay is him having faith in their luck because if the had not been lucky then they would probably would have died a long time ago but their luck kept them alive. Now the man is relying on luck for the boy to keep going on without him. He is building the boy up for the inevitable. All the father can really hope for is that these reassuring fragments will make him son keep faith in their luck. If the man or the boy had been speaking in full long sentences they would seem a lot stronger and able. The fragments make it seem though they are broken, only able to say a few words at a time. Everything about the book is short and abrupt, except the ‘adventure’ itself. Their journey is painfully long, almost tedious, and very much routine. Which is where most of the motif comes in. “Carrying the fire” is a recurring phrase. It does not pertain to the